The Scoop Factory

In the Sixties Andy Warhol grabbed up an abandoned low-rent space in midtown Manhattan and transformed it into a leading influence in the New York art and culture Scene. A hangout, a studio, a cultural center and the ultimate 24/7 unreality show, Warhol’s world was known as The Factory. Famous for his fifteen-minutes-of-fame witticism, he was an astute observer of pop culture and built an empire on the idea of celebrity. His studio was also a silkscreen production facility which was likewise a factory. This unending output of product put Warhol on the map.

Fast forward. I don’t really know if this is what The New Republic and Gabriel Sherman had in the back of their minds by calling their analysis of Politico.com The Scoop Factory. For sure, there are parallels. And like Warhol's Factory scene, some people are raving about it and other despise it.

If you’re not familiar with Politico.com, you might want to check it out. It's become the hottest thing in online D.C. Inside-the-Beltway news coverage. Like Warhol’s Factory in the Big Apple, Politico is influential. And like Warhol’s factory, Politico excels at cranking out product. And finally, like the people in Warhol’s world, celebritydom is also part of the chic mystique.

In reading Sherman’s piece I can't help but wonder how legitimate his concerns are. How serious are the issues Sherman raises?

The key to Politico’s success is speed. In the Washington scoop game, first is always best, as long as it is accurate. The unfortunate thing for daily newspapers is that today’s late news has to wait for tomorrow to find its way to print. At Politico, the news breaks as fast as the journalists can break it.

Sherman details how a story on Politico gets fed into the food chain so as to be propelled to the widest sweep of viewers and listeners, making use of the Huffington Post, Rush Limbaugh and other megaphones to give the stories credence and hopefully enough relevance to bring them into the evening news. One of his concerns is that stories can get reported before they have been adequately analyzed, which I'm sure happens. But doesn't a journalist who repeatedly breaks news that is ultimately unfounded lose his or her cred?

Sherman’s second concern seems to me a canard. He laments the burnout pace Politico’s reporters operate on, as if they are forced into intolerable work conditions for a measly quarter-million dollars. Along with the perks of fortune they also have instant cred for their careers, widespread recognition and a perpetual soapbox. And we’re supposed to feel sorry for these writers? These are not galley slaves who have been abducted into the service of an ignoble captain in exchange for gruel and a rat infested life below deck in a stench filled hole.

When I was starting out as a freelance writer, the first job I was able to land was for an 80 hour work week that paid $180 a week. Below minimum wage. But eventually I would learn how to do the work faster, I was told. I declined the offer.

As I noted Sunday, the power of the newspapers has taken a hit. Politico.com may be untested for the long haul, but its made a mark. Like Facebook and Twitter, who today can honestly say what it will morph into tomorrow.

EdNote: The painting of the ice cream cone at top is not my own work, but a photo I took in a San Francisco art gallery in the spring of 2007. It is used without permission, though if someone locates the artist, I will inquire and give credit where it is due.

The Demise of Newspapers: What Does It Mean?

One of the recurring questions over the past fifteen years has been this one: What will be the impact of the Internet. I've heard some folks lament that it will destroy the English language as we know it. Michael Crichton, among others, predicted that network television would become extinct like the Jurassic period dinosaurs he wrote about. Others, upon seeing what is happening in print media -- magazines and newspapers -- have begun ringing alarm bells about the demise of democracy. Without an informed electorate, where will we be then? The questions are being raised. The only point of agreement is that things have been changing.

While in the Flagstaff B&N last week I picked up a copy of The New Republic (TNR) because it had several articles pertaining to this theme as it related to newspapers. One of these especially caught my eye, written by Paul Starr, a professor of communications and public affairs at Princeton. In Paul Starr's view, the diminished strength of our nation's newspapers will have serious ramifications in our culture, politics and our experience of democracy. In his article Goodbye to the Age of Newspapers (Hello to a New Era of Corruption) Starr writes, "More than any other medium, newspapers have been our eyes on the state, our check on private abuses, our civic alarm systems. It is true that they have often failed to perform those functions as well as they should have done. But whether they can continue to perform them at all is now in doubt."

That newspapers are shrinking in size is self-evident. Our local Duluth News-Tribune is half what it used to be, if that. And all across the country journalists are being ushered into early retirement or alternative careers, many in the Public Relations sphere. Declining ad revenues are the chief culprit as well as declining circulation numbers. The newspapers can't support the staff.

Starr states that Internet bloggers and writers excel at sharing their opinions but that Watergate scandals do not get unearthed without rigorous research and tedious fact-checking. I would counter that we have all seen the power of the blogosphere to bring down the likes of Dan Rather and Trent Lott. Such anecdotes do not entirely dismantle the force of his arguments. In my opinion it is a worthwhile debate.

According to Dean Baker, Co-director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, "Newspapers are vital, but they have failed us." The title of his article, posted at Politico.com,says it all. Will you (unlike most Americans polled) miss your newspaper when its gone? How much will the decline of the paper hurt our democracy?

There's no hand-wringing in Baker's piece, which begins, "Newspapers have a vital role to play in a democracy, but unfortunately they have largely failed in filling this role in recent decades. For this reason, their passing is hardly a tragedy." Taking an optimist's view, the news and information business is being liberated and democratized by the demise of newspapers and the Internet's rise.

In that self-same issue of TNR which shared Starr's concerns we can find an intriguing dissection of Politico.com, the soapbox from which Baker delivers his salvos. The Scoop Factory bores down on the "brave new world of post-print journalism." I'll give my take on that story another day.

What do you think? Are newspapers going to die altogether? It's hard for me to envision that scenario. Some people once thought television would replace radio, but that never happened, though talkies did pretty much eliminate silent pictures. Four weeks ago former Superior Telegram editor Ron Brochu made some illuminating observations pertaining to this theme during an interview for Ennyman's Territory. Maybe you'd like to contribute something to this dialogue.